In fact, it's kind of a barbaric question. What were African-Americans like before Civil Rights? What were epileptics like when people still locked them in institutions? What were mentally ill people like when people gave them exorcisms? What were people like before reading became common?
I think people want to gloss over this shit, and how it wasn't that long ago in the grand scheme of things. Those people usually call themselves anarcho-capitalist libertarians and I think we only have to look to the past to see how out of touch with reality they are.
"Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul." - Edward Abbey
I'm just too new age. I don't see any difference between men and women that actually matter.
To me, that there was a need of feminism in the first place is just one big joke. I don't understand what reasons could lead anyone to keep someone from realizing their fullest potential. It is just counterproductive.
At least the western society has reached the point where the rights and chances are no longer divided. And the only thing left are opinions of people that don't matter.
The tire commercial is totally sexist. All the flashing images of construction, signs, etc, and her wide-eyed apprehension, coupled with the suspenseful music, then the slogan, "When a woman's at the wheel?" It's a wee bit insulting, as if a poor woman's brain can't handle all the stresses of the road and is much likely to be overwhelmed and veer into traffic or something.
If a man watching the commercial cared about the woman, would it make it suspenseful?
Perhaps a feminist could explain something to me...
How in the world can 50% of a population be a "minority group" (and not just by numbers, in any sense of the word..). I've always thought it a bit weird that a group that in some cases out number the out-group could be oppressed. If so, how? Based on physicality? The days of brute force being a major factor in survival are long gone. If women are treated differently (which they are, I'm not saying that they aren't) wouldn't it be due to vestiges of what it meant to be human? How can you dislike a people for being who they evolved to be? Is it not within every man's nature to "protect women"? What women see as "them being owned" I've always seen as "men protecting women". From what? From the harsh realities of the world! Women, I think, have always been considered "too special" or "too pure" to participate in the brutality that the world has to offer. Why any women would willingly choose that is beyond me...but then again, why I choose to participate in the brutality of the world is a mystery to me as well..
If the argument is "Well, I don't want or need protection" then my response is simple; "Well, I want to give it to you". Of course, if you feel that you want room to grow and develop and "be your own person" that's all well and good too..but I don't see how it's a bad thing to want to provide for a woman. It's baffling...it really is. Perhaps the application of this want is a bit off, and perhaps we have taken it to extremes in the past (we are men after all, extremes is what we do..lol), but how can they're be anything but appreciation for this? What, we love you "too much"?
Feminism, it seems, is nothing more than just a body of thought that can be reduced to this "Men don't understand what women want.." to which the answer is "Well, duh you keep on being dissatisfied with whatever we provide! Do you want us to leave you alone? Do you want us to not provide for you? No? Then why don't you just tell us, in no uncertain terms, what the hell you want?!?"
"Oh well, it's complicated.."
I think every man is well aware of just how complicated it is.
And I love how I'm going to be accused of being a misogynist when my intentions are nothing but pure. It seems the definition of misogyny is "loving women to a fault". What fault? Whatever fault the women of the day feel like saying is a fault..
I mean, men went to the moon! To the moon! How can we go to the moon but still not be able to understand women? You want to know how? They are understandable and they are doing it on purpose.
ughh..im done...I really don't want to post this..but I will anyway..
That's very true. I also don't think nagging is a sex-linked trait- we just don't tend to call it "nagging" when men do it. We call it pestering or controlling.
I also think it perpetuates an unnecessarily adversarial concept of M/F relationships.
That is a very good observation.
The female half of a couple of my acquaintance is a classic ”nag” using guilt and sheer emotional attrition to manipulate and control her fiancé. I remember thinking once that her MO was remarkably similar to that of a male spousal abuser: controlling schedule, social interactions, reducing contacts with friends and family, etc.. An insight I didn’t follow up on and had sort of forgotten till this thread came up. Doh!!
What is kind of interesting is she doesn't use that type of approach with other men in her orbit: with me she's very pleasant and polite. I wonder if she uses some type of emotional intelligence to determine who is a candidate for manipulation or... did she just find out it works with her partner and the more it works, the more she uses it.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups